MAHARASTRA RAJYA SHETKI MAHAMDAL KARMACHRI SANGHATNA Vs. M D MAHARASHTRA STATE FARMING CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 25th February, 1994 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Maharashtra at Pune dismissing complaint (ULP) No. 128 of 1991. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner Sanghatna union on behalf of the employee of the respondent Corporation and working in the head office at Pune. It was a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and it was contended that the respondent employer failed to implement the G. R. dated 1st October, 1988 and this failure amounted to an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. As per the complaint, the employees at the head office of the respondent Corporation are entitled for the pay scale and other monetary benefits as applicable to the State government employees. A revision made in the pay scales pursuant to the 4th pay Commission in the salaries payable to the Government employees was not enforced in respect of the head office employees in spite of repeated reminders/representations made by the union. It was pointed out that such recommendations and Bhole Commission's report were made applicable to the employees of the head office in the past and even salaries were refused as per the third Pay Commission. When the Board itself had accepted by way of specific resolution that the pay scales of the directly recruited employees of the corporation would be at par with the pay scales of the State Government employees, it was imperative for the respondent-Corporation to implement the 4th Pay Commission recommendations from 1st January, 1986 or from any other date on par with the State Government employees and failure to do so on the part of the respondents amounts to failure to implement the award/settlement and thus the act of the Corporation amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The main prayer in the complaint reads thus :"to cease and resist from the aforesaid act of unfair labour practice by giving affirmative direction to the respondent to implement the G. R. dated 1st October, 1988 along with the other resolutions pertaining to D. A. and H. R. A. "

(2.) The respondent filed the written statement and opposed the complaint contending that it did not engage in any act of unfair labour practice as alleged. As per the respondent, the resolution passed by the State Government regarding the revision in pay scales, D A. and other monetary allowances were not automatically applicable to its employees and such resolutions are required to be first placed before the board of directors of the Corporation who would pass a resolution for implementation of the revised pay scales subject to variations and thereafter it would approach the State Government for its approval. However, the corporation was running into losses for last about more than 20 years and the financial condition at the relevant time did not permit it to revise the pay scales in tune with the IV Pay Commission recommendations. Such an act would not come within the ambit of 'unfair labour practice' on the purported ground that the Corporation failed to implement the G. R. It was further denied that by way of customs and practice established over a long period that the Corporation was required to revise the pay scales as per the G. R. dated 1st October, 1988 on its own and thereafter approach the State Government for releasing funds.

(3.) The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence during the trial of the complaint and on assessment of the evidence of the respective parties, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has recorded a finding that; there was no material to show that the G. Rs were per se binding on the corporation to revise the pay scales of the head office employees in tune with such resolutions. The industrial Court concluded that there was no case of unfair labour practice made out against the respondents and failure to revise the pay scales as per the G. R. dated 1st October, 1988 did not amount to an act of unfair labour practice within item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.